This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Shall we see what started our little exchange, it was this comment of yours;

Originally Posted by Redress

We don't say things like that around religious people. It's at least as believable as the rest of the things they believe.

I then made a half-facetious comment back, in a thread about atheists calling Christianity a myth, and then you tried to refute it, failed and then got moody. Personally I find the person who made the above comment and then had a hissy fit at the slightest challenge the most arrogant. But you find this with many atheists of your type. They feel they are oh so much better than the usual, good Christians they come across and they titter to themselves over these believers in Fairy Tales and foolish superstitions. What fools, what dupes, what haters.

They tend to get frustrated whenever they are challenged and cannot answer simple points however.

Last edited by Wessexman; 12-16-11 at 02:30 AM.

"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Originally Posted by LaMidRighter

Yes, but here's the thing. Depending on the number of applicants those numbers don't necessarily change the odds. There really isn't a lot of information about the drawing method, total number of of spots taken, etc.

Edit- I read the story in it's entirety.

13 people bid for the slots. Each person could bid for a max of 9 slots. From the following article one can only assume that they doled out the spots individually on a 1 spot per drawing basis....

To keep it fair and legal, officials in the famously liberal city turned to a lottery to dole out spots in the prime location along Ocean Avenue.

According to the OP's article 2 athiests applied for 9 spots each. So...what is the chances of 2 people (out of 13) getting 18 slots on a slot by slot basis?

A few other tidbits that I found interesting in that article....

Indeed, Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said December is a busy time for the organization's attorneys, who challenge the use of public spaces for religious messages.

"It's littering — literally, littering — these spaces," Gaylor said of such displays, which she said are a "territorial attempt by Christians to impose their beliefs in this season."

Guess we know where she stands in all this...I wonder if she would like it if we called her stuff garbage?

In Santa Monica, atheist Damon Vix called national organizations seeking help because he felt marginalized by the display, and tradition alone didn't merit saving it. Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said the display "defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very excluded by that."

Last year, he put up a display of his own: signs with quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln — quotes that his opponents say are of dubious veracity. (It's worth noting that both sides suspect the Founding Fathers would support them.)

Wait...the guy feels excluded and yet last year he put up a sign by himself? How is it that he is excluded when he was obviously allowed to put up his own sign? And is it really everyone elses fault if he has no belief system or doesn't celebrate Christmas?

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

According to the OP's article 2 athiests applied for 9 spots each. So...what is the chances of 2 people (out of 13) getting 18 slots on a slot by slot basis?

Ahh. Okay, those numbers don't line up well. If they did win honestly I want them to pick my powerball numbers.

A few other tidbits that I found interesting in that article....

Guess we know where she stands in all this...I wonder if she would like it if we called her stuff garbage?

She seems pretty smug about the whole thing.

Wait...the guy feels excluded and yet last year he put up a sign by himself? How is it that he is excluded when he was obviously allowed to put up his own sign? And is it really everyone elses fault if he has no belief system or doesn't celebrate Christmas?

My problem is when someone has the idea that inclusion somehow means they get to take cheap shots at people. What a jackass.

Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Originally Posted by LaMidRighter

Ahh. Okay, those numbers don't line up well. If they did win honestly I want them to pick my powerball numbers.

Same here. I use to work in a Casino and my wife still does. Neither one of us ever saw/heard of anyone getting called 9 times in a single drawing (they have weekly drawings...half the time more than 1 drawing in a day). And my wife has worked there for 12 years almost.

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

According to the OP's article 2 athiests applied for 9 spots each. So...what is the chances of 2 people (out of 13) getting 18 slots on a slot by slot basis?

A few other tidbits that I found interesting in that article....

Guess we know where she stands in all this...I wonder if she would like it if we called her stuff garbage?

Wait...the guy feels excluded and yet last year he put up a sign by himself? How is it that he is excluded when he was obviously allowed to put up his own sign? And is it really everyone elses fault if he has no belief system or doesn't celebrate Christmas?

For somebody with supposedly thick skin you are making quite an effort to complain about a few posters in a different time zone from you.

Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me.

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Originally Posted by DiAnna

Being an atheist in the 1950's was enough to get you blacklisted for life. Before that, there were times when it was enough to get you killed. Madeline Murray O'Hare was murdered specifically because she was an atheist activist in 1986.

Ultimately, a murder investigation focused on David Roland Waters, who had worked as a typesetter for American Atheists. Not only did Waters have previous convictions for violent crimes, there were several suspicious burglaries during his tenure, and he pleaded guilty earlier in 1995 to stealing $54,000 from American Atheists.

The police concluded that Waters and his accomplices had kidnapped all three O'Hairs, forced them to withdraw the missing funds, gone on several huge shopping sprees with the O'Hairs' money and credit cards, and then murdered all three people. ...Waters eventually pleaded guilty to reduced charges. ...In January 2001, Waters informed the police that the O'Hairs were buried on a Texas ranch, and he subsequently led them to the bodies.

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

If you want to start lecturing me about fallacies after that ****tacular comparison you made earlier, how about you actually learn what it is.

No disrespect intended, but I laughed when I read this. You accused me of lecturing you?

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Argumentum ad populum is suggesting that an individual arguement is true because its popular or holds true for many people then therefore it is universally true. That's not my argument in the least. Now, if you want to talk about "fallacies" go look up strawman. My argument was not that Christianity is "true" because its possible and thus it shouldn't be called mythology.

My argument was that its a tactless and dickish move to make a display like that in a public setting specifically aimed at belittling the view points held by a large population of people. Argumentum ad populum is NOT a fallacy when pointing out that something IS popular and pointing out popularity in and of itself is not a fallacy. My argument relies zero on whether or not Christianity or the Greek Gods are or aren't technically "mythology". Rather, my argument relies on whether or not its true that a majority of people VIEW them as such. A majority of people, especially in academic colleges in the United States, considered Greek Gods to by Mythology thus terming it as such is not some kind of tactless statement nor something that is reasonable to expect someone to think is an "inflamatory remark". On the contrary, stating that JESUS is "mythology" is a view point opposite of what the majority of people in the location of that display views and is something that is reasonable to expect that many people would take as "inflamatory".

Technically, to an atheist, all religions are mythologies. The different deities are hypothetical constructs. If a sociologist from another planet came to earth they would have to agree as they have an objective view. Sure, I recognize that people think that it's inflammatory because it challenges "conventional wisdom". I don't think that all challenges to "conventional wisdom" are inherently "mocking and belittling". If they put up a Flying Spaghetti Monster nativity scene, that would be mocking and belittling. I've seen people here at DP in years past complain about people using the abbreviation "X-mas". I don't see using that abbreviation as mocking and belittling yet I'll bet they do. The reason I said it was an appeal to popularity fallacy is because I think that the religious can be overly sensitive to any and all challenges to their belief systems. I don't deny that they get upset. What I take exception to is that all challenges are mocking and belittling. Calling it a mythology is not mocking and belittling in my opinion. Saying it automatically is because most people think so is the appeal to popularity.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

This doesn't even however begin to enter into the absurdity of comparing a class, where lenthy discussion and indepth analysis by individuals CHOOSING to take part in it, to a one line display put up in public.

People would be upset if a college had a "Christian Mythology" class. That is what I was getting at. People are demanding political correctness for the popular belief systems, not on any merits of those belief systems, but simply because they are popular.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

It'd be a dick move regardless of what religion they attacked. Would it possibly be funny? Maybe it would. I find tactless dick moves funny sometimes. Doesn't make them any less of a dick move. But if you want to play the "I don't believe" game or the "this thread would be full of" game, had this been a Christian group putting up a display specifically attacking Muslims, or specifically attacking athiests, I think we'd see this thread full of people talking about the bigotry of Christians and the disgusting way they push their views and I don't believe we'd be seeing you having near the same support for the issue of negatively affirming ones beliefs as the direct expense and targetting of another group.

It would have been hilarious if they had a picture of the female orgasm.

In central Illinois I see lots of literature telling non-believers they need to repent and accept Christ as their Savior. I usually laugh at them. They are usually over the top. I wish I still had the "Million dollar Santa" bill that was cute on the front and on the back went on to call atheists "Satanic". My coworkers and I had a good laugh at that one.

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Originally Posted by ChuckBerry

So long as there is no historical evidence to indicate that their deities existed and did what their followers claim they did, no.

I don't think hearsay is good enough "evidence". There may have been a man named Jesus who was from Nazareth. That's about it. I don't believe the immaculate conception or any of his miracles are supported by anything other than hearsay.

Re: Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Originally Posted by liblady

don't you want to spread your beliefs? and how are they oppressing the beliefs of others?

It's rude to try and overpower another's display with arrogance. I believe in spreading my beliefs through my actions, not through offending others and being arrogant. The whole point is that their goal is to displace a nativity scene in the name of their disbelief in God. It's rude, it's legal, but it's only purpose is to offend people.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates